User talk:Ivorybill

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. SteveHopson 15:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing links
And please do not remove appropriate links either. You removed a National Geographic link item from Bald Eagle. Dhaluza 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ivorybill’s answer
As the user who created the external link to which you refer, I’m quite aware that I removed it. I did so after an administrator removed a similar link I created for the Birdwatching article. The administrator justified his action by pointing to the above spam notice, which contains nothing but false accusations and is itself a form of spam. Judged guilty until proven innocent, I had no choice but to remove all the links I created, thereby ending my association with Wikipedia. Your piling-on complaint only confirms the rightness of my decision.
 * They probably removed it because it is an opinion piece which is generally not appropriate. It also may not have been as relevant as the other links. Wikipedia tries to discourage long lists of things, especially links. And they are very pro-active about reducing clutter. So don't be offended. I realize you may have identified with the writer of the opinion piece, but Wikipedia tries to be more dispassionate about things.
 * The National Geographic article you linked to Bald Eagle was actually very good, and news not opinion. Also when you make an edit, enter a reason in the summary field. When you removed it with no explanation, it looked like vandalism. If you had put the explanation there, I could have put a counter explanation when I reverted it, and it would have been much clearer. Sorry if it seemed I was piling on, but without an explanation from you, the previous note was the only context I had.
 * You should also create a user page for yourself so people know you are a serious contributer. Look at the user pages of contributers to articles with common interests, and cut and paste elements that are relevant to you. Dhaluza 12:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)